Member Info for Penguins

2/10/18

'The water produced was not expected, the Company's testing team believes a small high-pressure water zone was intersected in the horizontal section of the well which will require isolation in the future.'

Not sure that is as encouraging as just cleaning out the kill fluids a d everything will be fine. UKOG initially just thought they needed to isolate, in the Portland, a fracture zone in the toe of HH-2z - and that was after UKOG had run logs to identify where the water was coming from.

The Kimmeridge is expected to be fractured, the reason it can flow reasonably if only whilst 'unloading' from the fractures, and in 2018 production from the Kimmeridge at Horse Hill was still planned so was used as an example by Angus of the Kimmeridge performing well vs what happened at Broadford Bridge.

Even if water influx isn't an issue long term production from the Kimmeridge at 'strong rates' is yet to be proved anywhere, I'd certainly be cautious about initial flow rates being indicative of anything much except an opportunity for a P&D.

I hope Balcombe proves the Kimmeridge can be put in to long term production, but it certainly isn't a done deal.

You posted:-

'The activist are getting jumpy . Always a good sign.'

Firstly the correct term is realists not activists.

Secondly by jumpy you surely mean posting a realistic view of what's happening or pointing out that a newly arrived poster is Adrian,

and finally when has this been a 'good sign' as there hasn't been a single occasion when any result of activity by UKOG has turned out close to UKOG's opinion, but most times close to what those pesky realists say, and therefore anyone like yourself and ocelot who uncritically repeat their PR in the shape of RNS or tweets - or are more positive than UKOG - and critical of those posting a contrary view, are wrong.

Every O&G project that UKOG operates is stalled either waiting for someone else to do the work - and reduce UKOG's equity in the project, or in Turkey for AME and UKOG to agree the next worse option for further work on Resan.

But the verdict of the Supreme Court, which is anticipated to be in SCC's favour, and thus UKOG's, won't change the high risk that further drilling at Horse Hill will have similar outcomes to HH-1 or HH-2z. But prior to drilling HH-3 a 3D needs to be acquired that may, like the seismic acquisition in Turkey appears to have done to Basur-4, remove or significantly change the proposed updip target for HH-3.

Adrian just wants to unload his £5k of shares bought for nearly 0.06p (whatever happened to the £5k bought for around 0.0074p before consolidation?) in a P&D on the Supreme Court news - not because he has any intention of holding in the hope that UKOG are successful in any of their ventures - though for UKOG the only hoped for success seems to be to farm out, or for Portland Port get someone else to help pay.

Sounds more like the plan from the start. A project far more suited to his ego than running the tin pot company he has been culpable in producing. The quest for transformational projects from what we're, on closer inspection (even prior to drilling), 'pigs ears' being part of the problem

The focus on the Portland Port gas storage project appears to have been detrimental to all the operated O&G projects with little or no progress with Loxley and HH (and the epic heel dragging on Pinarova to prove what was probably at least 90% predictable) plus the desire to dilute UKOG's interest in both, while spending cash raised on the hopes generated by the little O&G activity (or even plans for activity) on progressing Portland Port.

My post from 5/2/23

'As for the Portand project I've already said that I expect UKEn to be sold to a company capable of doing it, though the economics of gas storage can be tricky with huge upfront costs and no cashflow for years - but not a JV, a tiny company as a partner would be a drag on progress - though I wouldn't be surprised if SS was keen to sell and go with it as a continuity director.'

Whilst UKOG currently is taking all the financial risk that they might not get government help UKEnergy Storage is unlikely to be able to refund any of that expenditure if thay do get government funding except by being sold. Of course the SP might rise and pi benefit from that and fund raising perhaps less painful.

Maybe setting up UKEn Holdings is a vehicle for SS to take UK Energy Storage private - otherwise what is it for, set up in competition to the company he is Chief Executive of?

Adrian,

Is that not long now a bit like 'soon'?

'The Fool on The Hill@davethedrill1

Oct 9, 2023

#UKOG #Horsehill court win soon ;)'

But nothing much will happen - PPP haven't got the cash, and nor has UKOG, to drill, so probably just a regurgitation of plans that have already been recycled so many times.

Possibly a P&D that because UKOG is such a great company with a great future Adrian will sell on, but the news of the Loxley High Court decision hardly caused a ripple.

I suppose it's a reflection of the likelihood that the sort of investor you're hoping to dig you out by buying shares so you can sell won't have read any RNS or Annual Report so you select a few bits you hope will make them think UKOG has assets - though for HH and Loxley they need a farminee that can afford to drill the wells, as they can't, something that isn't clear PPP are going to be able to do at HH RNS over a year ago and still not agreed, and no indication that anyone is interested in Loxley, a pre planned farm out available since mid 2022.

...and I notice you didn't copy and paste this bit about the loan to HHDL:-

'The Directors carried out an impairment review of the loans to subsidiary companies and determined that an impairment charge of £14.7m is required in respect of the loan owed by Horse Hill Developments Limited. The analysis was based on the expected values of Horse Hill Developments Limited and the carrying value of investments and loan recorded in the Company'

They obviously don't think HHDL will be able to repay much more of the remaining about £16.7mm loan - so not that profitable with HHDL having 65% interest in the field.

You posted:-

'Its is good to have the companies views on here for a change. Not just the made up nonsense from the activists'

The irony is if anyone was to trawl through what UKOG's views previously were about HH, BB and Turkey, all of which have been drilled and failed, you might find a more reliable commentary about the outcomes - Kimmeridge at HH not in production, Portland at HH nothing like as good as claimed, BB failed and both Basur-3 and Pinarova failed - would be in the 'nonsense' from what in your similarly wrong view are activists.

Still hangs onto the non assets (intangible assets) as if they have any basis in reality.

As deltavega, and I have previously, points out the figure is nothing more than how much UKOG has spent not finding commercial oil.

Even the valuation of HH-1 hasn't been put to the test of a CPR, the only producing asset with a 'normal' oil company valuation is Horndean and if / when it returns to production Avington - both operated by Star.

UKOG doesn't identify what bit of value of non-asset is associated with which project except HH so there's no way of knowing if the valuation is likely to be realised. Even for HH it's remarkable that despite the well that's producing being valued at £1.4mm (up from last year's £0.8mm) the Horse Hill development is carried at £19.3mm in non-assets - though that won't acknowledge the 49% hit based on the PPP farm out should it happen.

In fact apart from Turkey where they are obliged to stump up 50% of ongoing costs everything else depends on their salesmen being as good as AME's, or the farminees being as 'diligent' as UKOG apparently were in farming in - unless, of course, they didn't believe their own 'transformational' communications about it.

As for Contingent resources UKOG carry the Xodus 2020 gross resources for Basur Resan of 33mmbbls despite the failure of Basur-3, AME 7mmbbls.

UKOG clearly sees the Portland Port Project as its core business, or at least the priority for investment, judging by the importance placed on it in recent interim and annual reports.

However there's a disconnect, with money raised and spent on Portland Port via CLN or placings although the shares semm to be predominantly sold to pi hoping for short term rewards (based on the activity during P&Ds) on news about the oil and gas projects they are not spending money on to advance.

The excuse, at least for HH, is said to be waiting for the Supreme Court decision, but there is zero expectation SCC will lose - will that decision result in a burst of activity at HH, or rather a (re)announcement of plans for activity at HH? The farm out to PPP has not progressed since it was announced in March 2023 and PPP may have difficulty funding HH-3 even if they scrape together enough for the 3D.

Loxley's challenge was defeated in January. This has been on offer as a (pre-planned) farm out since mid 2022. There are still outstanding planning conditions to be addressed and whilst UKOG has RNS'd and tweeted about interest in Portland Port no expressions of interest in Loxley have ever been made by UKOG.

Turkey seems to be floundering and perhaps there's another disconnect between what UKOG and AME would like to do.

As for Portland Port - UKOG appears to be betting the farm on their subsidiary UKEn getting something from the Q3 2024 Allocation awards, though when anything is 'allocated' may be much later, but how that will help (fund) the O&G business hasn't been explained if none of the farm outs happens.

Last week, and AME had a stand there - surprised that UKOG don't have a stand in these 'trade' events where companies 'sell' the prospects etc they want to farm out.

A coincidence AME published their annual report last week? - did they check there wasn't anything contrary to what UKOG have said about Resan?

Should have been released on Thursday - why wasn't it?

From AIM rules for companies:-

'Annual accounts

19. An AIM company must publish annual audited accounts which must be sent to its

shareholders without delay and in any event not later than six months after the end of the

financial year to which they relate'

......and according to AIM rules failure to publish accounts within 6 months of the accounting period for the Annual Report leads to suspension.

'The Exchange will suspend AIM companies which are late in publishing their half-yearly report

or their annual accounts, pursuant to rule 40.'

Though rule 40 does suggest there are excuses.

After all they have been busy tidying up after the GM resolutions got passed on the second attempt, though that was only after ensuring that the pi vote didn't count having stuffed the EBT with over 3 billion shares to vote in favour - and incidentally about 1,000,000 more than the 10% the EBT is limited to.

Unfortunately as the Annual Report, and more importantly the accounts, will only be up to end last September we still won't know if the loan note holders have an extra £1,000,000 of notes to convert on top of the, as UKOG put it, 'principal balance of the £2 million gross first cash sum received below the prior £0.66 million figure announced on 23 January 2024.'

On 13 March UKOG revealed a further 206,965,282 shares were handed over - but the price would be decided at some other time, even 15 days before, no doubt at a time advantageous to the loan note holder.

....and Trish I do copy and paste when necessary - mainly of extracts that have probably not been seen by most posters who seem to be oblivious even to what's in RNS let alone to reports found elsewhere.........or even AIM rules.

The Loxley CPR shows signs of UKOG influence and there is at least one error in interpretation of the Loxley well.

Firstly UKOG insisted on an additional calculation of NPV using a flat 186.5p per therm price forecast, the gas price at the end of December 2022. That price has not been reached since - end December 2023 gas price was less than 100p per therm - but in the recent tweet they only quote 'their' NPV, not RPS's which is about a third less.

The development in the CPR is based on the exploration well becoming the single production well until such time as production drops off and a second producer is drilled. However the original plan was for 5 production wells based on a view of productivity per well which would significantly impact the NPV value.

So why the change?

UKOG had a report produced by Kappa Engineering which it appears from the text that RPS has reluctantly accepted - this the footnote to page 32 about GB-1:-

'To date, DST rates were only approximately 1 MMscf/d. Kappa’s interpretation of DST#6 suggests this may be due to a large mechanical skin during the test and that a zero skin well could produce at significantly higher rates (15-18 MMscf/d), though RPS believes the interpretation is uncertain due to the scarcity of the available pressure data. However, based on the reservoir properties from logs, there is no suggestion that these rates cannot be achieved from the planned wells if drilled successfully with minimum formation damage.'

As for the error in the analysis of Alfold-1 on which a gas column in Loxley and the structural closure is based.

The uppermost, gas bearing, Portland in GB-1 has a good porosity/permeability which RPS attribute to gas emplacement preserving poroperms. The logs for both wells are shown which clearly show that in fact the uppermost, supposedly gas bearing, Portland in Alfold (figure 5.16 labelled incorrectly as GB-2z on page 23) has poorer (most around 10%) porosity (phi column) above the supposed GWC than GB-1 (most 15 to 20%). But the largest contrast is permeability, but for whatever reason the core permeability (kh red astersks in the right most column) isn't plotted on the single well figure for Alfold-1 - but is in the correlation figure 5.18.

The values for GB-1 are generally in the range 100 to 1000md - for Alfold less than 10.

The points when plotted on the cross plot don't even remotely lie on the same trend even the colour coding suggests something is wrong, so the assertion in the CPR that:- 'There appears to be two distinct trends in the core data porosity permeability relationship, shown in Figure 5.14. This data could mean that permeability may be preferentially preserved by gas emplacement above the Gas Water Contact.' Two trends maybe but not related to the GWC.

The current licensing status is irrelevant. That survey was probably shot years ago chasing the Kurtalan discovery which was mentioned in 1961 - and the licence area may have covered what is now the Resan licence anyway,

I doubt that any recent survey would be a series of 2D lines shot in dip and strike direction rather than a 3D.

Ibug,

Not sure what you mean but that's historic data - and doesn't even include the 2 phases shot for Basur and Pinarova.

So there will have been licences over the area previously and seismic shot across those licences maybemlicenced to the same licencee.

Of course prospects are no respecters of licence boundaries and maybe in Turkey it's possible to shoot outside your license if the adjacent acreage isn't licenses.

720 to 1080, not 720 to 1280bopd....

If someone has never sold because of belief in what they post is true (which I doubt) and has averaged down through thin and thin surely an ocelot TR1 must soon be on its way as the management, and therefore ocelot, has hoped, expected, claimed:-

That the Kimmeridge in the Weald would provide up to 27% of UK Oil consumption - the report was by EY but based on information provided by UKOG, and was prefaced as conservative following the 2016 testing.

Broadford Bridge - installed a 'production completion' to great acclaim before testing suggested following removal of the production completion that the testing was going well.

That by the end of 2019 HH would be producing 2000bopd.

That HH-2z would produce between 720 and 1280bopd.

That there would be 6 producers at HH producing initially 3,500bopd by end 2020.

That HH-1z would be a horizontal into the Kimmeridge.

That HH-1 would be dual completed.

That Basur-Resan, like almost every project, was 'potentially transformational' when evidence from E Sadak told a different story.

That Basur contained tens of millions of barrels of recoverable oil before drilling Basur-3.

Basur-4 would follow Basur-3.

That sequentially, in Pinarova-1, the Hoya amplitude anomaly, then the Hoya above that and then the shallower Germik was where the oil found in shotholes would be found.

So what is UKOG likely to be wrong about next:-

HH-3 drilled this year (more likely next) - but no predictions from UKOG as to likely success - plenty from DL, though farming out an appraisal / development well updip of a production well is an unusual step - are the risks high and thus risked economics not positive.

Loxley drilled this year (more likely next or never) finding a significant gas column in good reservoir in the Portland.

Another well in Turkey finding the source of the shothole oil.

As for Portland Port the new, presumably core, business where it seems every available penny is being spent - expressions of interest and encouraging words from the (probably) outgoing government need to be converted to partnerships and cash.

UKOG has never issued a RNS that has properly addressed the probable downside vs the hoped for result, is Portland Port no different?

My guess is they were obliged to get authority to issue more shares, perhaps because the CLN holders had triggered a conversion that UKOG couldn't legally fulfill.

But then have UKOG positive tweets and RNS always been accurate, or ocelot's posts based on them......maybe this time rodders......

Not sure where the A D V F N poster got their figures from but they are completely wrong.

I hope it was just a misunderstanding of the publically available figures, but oil sales have totalled 8601bbls including November's 4599bbls not about 25,000bbls those figures indicated.

So @ $55 a barrel less than $500,000 after royalties and taxes to 25 March, not $1,377,000 to 26 Feb.

and they will have been spending heavily on workovers according to what's in the RNS.

If it's true about 1H vs 4H it still suggests that 4H is a lot worse than 1H - or why shut in 4H in the hope of improving 1H - and 4H rates were after a long shut in.

They're also coy about water production which in the RNS on 30 Occt they said it would be reported in a few weeks, and the effects of the rising gas production.

Wondering if PPP can fund the HH farm in with a low SP and low oil production.

UKOG may be in discussion with several investors for the Portland Port project but UKOG has been pushing that narrative since December:-

'UKOG@UKOGlistedonAIM

·Dec 5, 2023

UK ENERGY STORAGE LTD: Portland Port hydrogen storage business gets significant boost in the space of a few days after positive discussions with two of world’s giant trading companies, Japanese Sumitomo, and US ExxonMobil. The countdown to lift off begins...'

Not sure what the countdown started at - or have there been a few failures at 'lift off'.

So that's 2050 sorted, even though there's not even a planning application been put in yet.

What about all those things that are meant to be be happening now, in what anybody investing over the past 9 years would consider the core O&G E&P business.

Has UKOG really not done all those things at HH that is so great they want to farm out 49% for a pittance relative to what they paid to get to 86%, and watched the SP collapse because of the legal challenge to the planning permission they've been adamant would fail?

Turkey was a desperate diversion that was never going to be truly transformational based on the nearby lookalike field rather than fields in Kurdistan.

Instead of nonsensical tweets maybe it's about time for UKOG to explain how it's going to survive this year, let alone until 2050.

I didn't say you had posted that UKOG had claimed production could double or treble, I asked you if you could find such a claim:-

'Perhaps you can quote where UKOG, a great source of positive information (again look at the SP chart to establish how accurate that is), has suggested since production started that injection would double oil production, let alone treble.'

So you can't because UKOG have never said production could double or treble - you were just making it up and haven't even tried to justify that opinion.

Wednesday you were claiming that K1 (Kimmeridge-1) production, a well near the village of Kimmeridge, was from the Kimmeridge.

'K1 is producing from the Kimmeridge

Fact'

... it wasn't 'fact' - it doesn't - since then I've read the K1 well report (UKOGL, UK Onshore Geophysical Library, nothing to do with UKOG) and production is from the Cornbrash, there is a comment about the Kimmeridge in the Oil, Gas and Water Indications Section which is:- 'No free oil or gas was recorded'. It wasn't tested.

Do you just come on this board to embarrass yourself?

You posted:-

'RE: UkogToday 11:27

Penguins

Is another one that can't read. Where have I said that UKOG have said the water injector could double production.'

Well a few hours before that post -

'Pboo

Posts: 7,280

Price: 0.065

No Opinion

RE: UkogToday 07:30

Ninetails

If and when UKOG get the HH2 water injector up and running we could see the dribble as you call it from HH1 double or even treble.'

or have you not got the hang of the way this board works and thought it wasa private message to Ninetails.........

Unlike your 'wealdoilers' twitter account you can't change, delete, or stop anyone reading posts here.

As for ocelot,

Missing the obvious point that instead of making their EBT buy 3 billion shares so they could ignore their shareholder their adjournment is to:- 'enable the Company to engage with shareholders regarding their voting intentions, as it is crucial for the successful passage of resolutions'

Unlike your 'wealdoilers' twitter account you can't delete or change or stop anyone viewing what you say